Vol. 466 No. 3
2 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the response, if any, he has received from the Western European Union to his White Paper proposals regarding possible Irish participation under the Petersberg tasks; and the correspondence or contacts, if any, he or officials from his Department have had with NATO regarding the Partnership for Peace in view of his suggestion that Ireland should join this organisation. [11111/96]
10 Mr. Clohessy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the immediate steps, if any, the Government will take to join the Partnership for Peace in view of the fact that nearly every State in Europe has joined the partnership. [11269/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 10 together.
At the Western European Union ministerial council in Birmingham on 7 May, which I attended as an observer accompanied by the Minister for Defence, the Western European Union confirmed that the Western European Union observer countries — Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Finland and Sweden — have the possibility, on a case by case basis, to participate in the so-called Petersberg tasks. Ireland had made known its interest in the possibility of taking part, on a case by case basis, in the humanitarian and rescue tasks and peacekeeping tasks under the Petersberg declaration. At Birmingham, the Western European Union member states also explicitly recognised the traditionally active role played by the observer countries including Ireland, in the field of UN peacekeeping and the contribution that the observers could bring to Western European Union operations in the Petersberg framework. These are welcome developments. They are very much in line with the Government's position as set out in the White Paper.
The Government's White Paper on Foreign Policy also sets out the reasons Ireland should consider participating in the co-operative framework of Partnership for Peace which was an initiative of President Clinton and launched in January 1994. In his question Deputy Clohessy refers to the fact that nearly every state in Europe has joined Partnership for Peace. The partnership now extends to 43 states: NATO members, Russia, former Soviet Republics, neutral states and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. With its widespread membership and inclusive approach, Partnership for Peace has already assumed an important role in European security co-operation, particularly in such areas as training for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, environmental protection and drugs interdiction — all areas of major interest to Ireland as a country with a highly respected tradition in peacekeeping and international co-operation.
I attended a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on 17 April, at which a useful discussion of Partnership for Peace took place. I sense a growing acceptance and understanding of the reality that the partnership imposes no mutual defence commitments; has no implications for our policy of military neutrality and has nothing to do with NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence. It is concerned rather with increasing co-operation to enhance peacekeeping and humanitarian capability involving virtually every state across the continent of Europe. Far from marking a major change in our approach to security and defence issues, Partnership for Peace is consistent with Ireland's traditional support and encouragement for such inclusive security co-operation.
Accordingly, it is my intention that consultations between officials of my Department and NATO will shortly take place to explore further the benefits which Ireland could derive from Partnership for Peace. As the White Paper makes clear, the Government decided that a decision on participation in the partnership will only be taken by the Government in the light of consultations, including with the relevant committees of the Oireachtas, and such a decision will be subject to a motion on the terms and scope of any participation by Ireland being approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The humanitarian and peacekeeping roles of the Western European Union are already examined on a case by case basis through our honourable tradition of humanitarian, peacekeeping and crisis management work with and at the request of the UN. The belief that this work and those tasks should continue represents common ground in this House although we disagree about the role of the Western European Union.
The Petersberg tasks and their implementation involve the use of Western European Union member forces — not observer forces. Will the Minister make clear his view in relation to the Western European Union and our position within it? Will he confirm that we will remain as observers only and give us his view on the role of the Western European Union and the European Union and their amalgamation?
Deputy Burke seems to have a particular problem with Western European Union or the Partnership for Peace. I confirm that our position in relation to the Western European Union is consistent with that taken by the Fianna Fáil party in Government when it accepted observer status, without prior consultation with Dáil Éireann.
I welcome the recent statement by Deputy Ahern in Oxford on 10 May when he specifically welcomed the conclusions on possible participation by observers in the Petersberg tasks, as adopted in Birmingham. He said that his party has no problem about Ireland's full involvement on an ad hoc basis with the practical work of peacekeeping in Europe, co-ordinated by the Western European Union. He said that Fianna Fáil is anxious to participate fully in such tasks and to make its contribution. I welcome the clarity of that statement.
The Deputy is well aware that the Intergovernmental Conference will further consider the European Union's common foreign and security policy provisions as well as how best they can be developed to enhance the European Union's contribution to European and global peace and security, including through the EU-WEU relationship and the handling of the Petersberg task. I have to make it clear that the decisions taken in Birmingham do not prejudice the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference in so far as the EU-WEU relationship is concerned. Those decisions are helpful in the Intergovernmental Conference context. They leave open the possibility of the five EU non members of the Western European Union participating in the Petersberg tasks on a case by case basis. As far as I am concerned, that is something that can be accepted by all parties in this House.
As I said there is common ground between us in relation to the carrying out of peacekeeping and humanitatian tasks. This is outlined not just in the Oxford speech, which was an update of our position following the Birmingham declaration, but also in the Fianna Fáil policy document on foreign affairs published last November. We made it clear that examination and participation in humanitarian tasks would be on a case by case basis. We strongly object to full membership and full involvement in the Western European Union.
Does the approach to the Partnership for Peace and discussions with NATO represent Government policy? It has implications for our neutrality, regardless of what the Tánaiste tries to tell this House. Is the approach to the Partnership for Peace agreed Government policy and does it represent the policy of the three parties in Government?
The Deputy can take it that clear Government policy is enunciated in the White Paper on Foreign Policy and that is what I will repeat today. Deputy Burke seems to have a problem understanding the fundamental nature of the Partnership for Peace.
I have no problem understanding.
With all due respect, I think the Deputy has a problem in understanding. Slide is when you make decisions without consulting Dáil Éireann which was done when we took up observer status at the Western European Union.
I know the slide.
Please let us have the reply without constant interruption.
The Partnership for Peace has been established and is an important pan-European framework for inclusive co-operation on training for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. The White Paper has set out clearly the reasons we should consider joining the Partnership for Peace and we have stated that a decision will be taken after consultations, which I have just elaborated to the Deputy. The Deputy should reflect on the Partnership for Peace. It is a co-operative security framework which does not entail membership of NATO and it is fully compatible with our policy of military neutrality. Austria, Sweden, Finland and Malta have already joined as countries that remain outside military alliances. Each state participating in the Partnership for Peace decides on the scope of its participation. It is a matter for us to decide what relationship we want to have. There are 43 countries, all members of the OSCE, participating in the Partnership for Peace. European states not participating for obvious reasons include the former states of Yugoslavia, Cyprus which has a complication because of the division of the island, and the war-torn former Soviet Republic of Tajikistan. Ireland and Switzerland are also not participating.
Recent media reports have suggested that Switzerland, which is not a member of either the UN or the EU, is considering joining. Consideration of this is right and timely and the Dáil will be fully consulted.
I suggest to the Minister that statements from his colleagues in Government, Democratic Left, seem to question its affection for this policy to which he seems so closely aligned. I wish to make it clear so far as the Fianna Fáil Party is concerned that joining the Partnership for Peace is not a matter for decision by this House but by the Irish people. The people will make that decision if we are in Government. I suggest for geographical reasons, leaving aside all other reasons, that there will be no benefit to this country from joining the Partnership for Peace as distinct from the Finns and the Austrians. It is not an isolationist policy. We want to participate in peacekeeping exercises and humanitarian aid exercises as we have done and as is our tradition, but there will be no benefit for the people by joining the Partnership for Peace or a second class membership of NATO who were struggling to find a role for themselves in the new world order.
I want to assist the Deputy to elicit information but it must be done by way of supplementary questions only. I am proceeding now if the Tánaiste does not wish to reply.
I will have to respond.
That is the Tánaiste's prerogative.
Deputy Burke will have to sort out the differences on the Partnership for Peace between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats which will take some time before they sign up an agreement for Government.
The Government should sort it out with Democratic Left.
I am speaking on behalf of the Government. I am at a loss to understand why Deputy Burke cited "geographical reasons" for making decisions. Deputy Burke is wavering between isolationism and insularity. It bears no relationship to the developments which are taking place in trying to ensure we have a stable and secure future in Europe.
We come to Priority Question No. 4. I shall take replies to Nos. 4 and 5 in ordinary time.
